The Instigator
Greedav
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
LazyDemonKaizo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Non-sexual public nudity should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Greedav
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,627 times Debate No: 53258
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Greedav

Pro

Unfortunately, my last debate about public nudity ended due to my opponent's repeated forfeitures. As such, I will copy my first argument directly from my previous debate.

Please post your arguments/rebuttals in the first round.

CONTENTION 1: Banning non-sexual nudity in public violates the right to our bodies.

The phrase "my body, my choice" is often repeated in the abortion debate; however, it also proves a good argument in the public nudity debate. It is simply wrong for a government to force its citizens to put something on their bodies against their will. This violates one of the most basic rights we have: the right to our own bodies.

CONTENTION 2: Banning non-sexual nudity in public violates the right to freedom of expression.

Another basic right violated by the outlaw of public nudity is freedom of speech/expression. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

CONTENTION 3: Nudity is healthy.

Clothes, by their nature, restrict movement and blood flow in the human body. The ability to be nude in public also allows for increased intake of sunlight, resulting in higher Vitamin D production levels. Clothes even harbor the growth of fungi and bacteria on the body. Pants can lower sperm count in men, and clothes in general mess up the body's natural temperature-regulating systems. [1]
Now, think for a moment. If Con were to have his way, all of these health benefits would be inaccessible to everyone. A government that bans public nudity is not simply disallowing a healthy activity, but forcing its citizens to do something unhealthy! Imagine if a government passed a regulation requiring the drinking of soda in public. That is simply not a government's role.

Not only is nudity physically healthy, but psychologically healthy, too. Teens that grew up in a nudist camp were reported to be very well-adjusted in terms of body image, as well as thoughtful and happy. Children who grow up feeling no taboo about nudity are free of body shame and view the bodies of the opposite gender in a more wholesome, non-sexualized way.

I cannot stress this enough. Any government that bans nudity is inadvertently propagating body shame, sexualization of women, and poorer health among its citizens. This is simply an outrage.

That about covers my main points. I await Con's rebuttal.

SOURCES:

[1]- http://immortallife.info......
Report this Argument
LazyDemonKaizo

Con

I am going to be addressing these by contention.

CONTENTION 1: Requirement to wear clothes isn't violating our rights in any way, you still have the right to your body, adding clothes doesn't change anything as it isn't part of your body.

CONTENTION 2: Explain to me how being naked is a symbol of expression. If nudity became the norm, nudity wouldn't mean anything, therefor not expressing anything.

CONTENTION 3: I actually half agree with you here, but clothes are a necessary evil. As generic a statement as it is, children should not be exposed to such things at a young age.
Debate Round No. 1
Greedav

Pro

Thank you to Con for accepting my debate.

CONTENTION 1: Con is quite mistaken in his assertion that "requirement to wear clothes isn't violating our rights in any way." When you wear clothes, you are putting something on your body. The banning of public nudity is an invasive breach of privacy because it forces people to do something to their bodies that they may not want to do. Con does not refer to any sources in this contention, nor does (s)he list any facts or evidence.

CONTENTION 2: Nudity is indeed a type of expression. If wearing a shirt with a message on it is a form of expression, why wouldn't being naked be a form of expression? Something does not need to "mean anything" for it to be expression, an therefore protected under the First Amendment. Once again, Con does not refer to any sources or facts.

CONTENTION 3: Con states here that "Children should not be exposed to such things at a young age." I must ask, why not? Con does not give any facts, statistics, sources, or even logical reasons to prove this point. In the previous round, I stated a sourced fact that children who grow up in non-sexualized nudist households are impacted in many positive ways. For example, these children view the bodies of the opposite gender in a much more wholesome, less sexualitized way, and are free from body image issues. In today's culture, where many children's first exposure to nudity is (very sexual) pornography, wholesome, non-sexual nudity positively influences their views on the human body. This is especially important in regard to our teenagers' increasing body/self-esteem issues. Teenagers often feel that their bodies are inadequate, which leads to issues in self-esteem. This is mainly due to the way teens are usually introduced to the human body: pornography and media. It is a well-known fact that the models for these media are considered "the best of the best" in terms of sexual attractiveness. In addition, media such as pornography and magazines retouch most of their models, giving an unrealistic and unhealthy goal for teens. If non-sexual public nudity were more widespread, teens would be able to see more realistic bodies to compare their own bodies to. This would lead to a more well-rounded, secure population of teens. However, if Con were to have his/her way, this scenario would not be possible.

IN CONCLUSION: Con does not state any facts, nor does (s)he make any solid points. All my previous contentions remain intact, in addition to the augmentations I have made here.

Thank you, once again, to Con. I await your rebuttal.

SOURCES (May contain mild, non-sexual nudity)
1) http://freebeaches.org.nz...
2) http://idealbite.com...
3) http://immortallife.info...
LazyDemonKaizo

Con

The thing is, I have nothing wrong with nonsexual nudity. But I do not believe it should legal. You say in your argument that teens are usually introduced to nudity through pornography and media. This is one reason why nonsexual nudity wouldn't work, nudity to most of us is sexual and that's not going to change very soon.

You also say in your argument that "In addition, media such as pornography and magazines retouch most of their models, giving an unrealistic and unhealthy goal for teens." thus leading to low self esteem and that if nonsexual nudity were to be legal, it would "lead to a more well-rounded, secure population of teens." The problem with this is that a teen's self esteem is much deeper than just "I'm ugly."There are many reasons such as bullying, academic challenge, parents or other authority figures disapproving in your lifestyle or behavior, and the list goes on.

In contention 2, you argue that nudity is a form expression, and I stated that it wouldn't mean anything, which I will state again. But this time, I shall tell you my reasoning.(I should have in the first place, sorry about that). In terms of expression, wouldn't you agree that clothing is a form of it. You see it everyday with people belonging to certain groups or denominations. Clothing is a much better way to express yourself than being nude. With clothing, I can get a glimpse into your personality. All I see you expressing when you're nude is that, well, you're nude.

SOURCES:
http://www.psychologytoday.com...
http://peppermintstyle.wordpress.com...
http://ezinearticles.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Greedav

Pro

Thank you.

Con says in the first paragraph that "Nonsexual nudity wouldn't work, nudity to most of us is sexual and that's not going to change very soon." However, I'm not arguing that all nudity is sexual, nor am I saying that all nudity is non-sexual. There is a clear distinction between sexual and non-sexual nudity. For example, a naked person getting a tan or taking a walk is non-sexual. There is nothing emphasizing their sexuality or indicating arousal. On the other hand, a man walking around naked while stroking an erection is sexual, as is someone provocatively and blatantly showing their genitals to passerby in an attempt to arouse them. My argument in the previous round was that exposing more non-sexual nudity, and less sexual nudity, to teens would be beneficial to their self-esteem and body images. While you are correct in that there are many reasons for teenagers' trademarked body issues, isn't it better to eliminate one of these many causes than to eliminate none of them? Doubtless, body image is a major factor in many teens' self-esteem, and making non-sexual nudity more widespread through legalization would aid immensely in our teenagers' lives.

Con then says again that "[Nudity] wouldn't mean anything," in a rebuttal against my argument that public nudity falls under the protection of the First Amendment. However, nudity can be used to express a great many things. PeTA has gained much attention for its "I'd Rather Go Naked than Wear Fur" campaign, which seeks to bring attention to animal cruelty. Almost any form of clothing (or lack thereof) can be used to express a sentiment or idea. Nudity can be used to protest the fur industry, the oppression of women by radical Muslims, the outlaw of public nudity, or a plethora of other causes or ideologies. It doesn't matter if, as Con says, "Clothing is a much better way to express yourself than being nude," the fact remains that nudity is a form of expression, and is protected under the First Amendment.

Con does not attempt to refute my arguments that nudity is good for children, nor does (s)he say anything about my assertion that banning public nudity is a violation of the right to one's body.

SOURCES:
1) http://www.peta.org...
LazyDemonKaizo

Con

LazyDemonKaizo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Greedav

Pro

Extend all arguments due to Con's forfeiture.
LazyDemonKaizo

Con

LazyDemonKaizo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Greedav

Pro

Extend all arguments.

Vote Pro.
LazyDemonKaizo

Con

LazyDemonKaizo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
GreedavLazyDemonKaizoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF